lready does that automatically; altruistic gene [obviously part of the human make-up]. You see if someone makes a group "Me to We" then many individuals will say that I am 'never interested in being part of that' thus you lose all the superstars, but if we add the WE to ME or the ME to WE then WE all win. That is a Win/Win +.

I think as it stands the "Me to We" sends the incorrect message when you think it through. Although it is quite catchy on the surface for such an organization. They must enhance the volunteer individual, add to their self; do not take it away or change them into something that they are not.

I hope you

It is essential that when you start a non-profit group that you fully consider all the implications of the message you send out. A simple catchy slogan can destroy all the good will intent if done incorrectly. Let's look at a case study shall we?

The "Me to We Organization" was started to help the Children of the World, its headquarters are in Canada, but like many non-profit organizations it will gladly take volunteers or donations from anyone in any nation. Thus a target market for wealthy donors might be in the United States. Of course if we look at the name of the organization and the title, we should see some obvious mistakes in branding.

"Me to We" suggests giving up the individual for the whole. Well that is like saying Capitalism is Bad and Communism is Good. Yet we know from history that the biggest abuses of human rights have been caused in communist nations. You may email me if you need historical examples. The branded logo uses an interlocked m and w as the symbol, which is good as it suggests combining the two, but the slogan suggests erasing the individual for the many.

Thus the new symbol should be;

M

W = E2

If you put the M and W together on top of one another they form a symmetrical shape with an = sign in between you are left with E over E or One. Thus the Whole is the One and the One is the Whole you see? Then if you take the two E's left over you can multiply the efficiency. E squared. And this is a take-off of E=MC2 and so that ought to be the symbol for the movement.

We do not wish to change people when building a philanthropic endeavor; we wish to enhance understanding, proper thinking and ability to live in harmony. In this case study it should be evident that a huge error has been made and the lesson is; Do not take away the individual fore "I" may be able to do what 50 people can do, why waste efficiency.

Indeed, why should someone have to give up self to join a group to help others? Groucho Marx might have a comment on that; remember his famous quote.

"I would not join any club that would have someone like me for a member."

Do not destroy the individual for the betterment of the whole and do not destroy the whole for the betterment of the one. Actually philosophically if you destroy either you are doing the same thing anyway and we are all doomed to repeat.

It is not about "We thinking" or "We acting" as an actualized individual already does that automatically; altruistic gene [obviously part of the human make-up]. You see if someone makes a group "Me to We" then many individuals will say that I am 'never interested in being part of that' thus you lose all the superstars, but if we add the WE to ME or the ME to WE then WE all win. That is a Win/Win +.

I think as it stands the "Me to We" sends the incorrect message when you think it through. Although it is quite catchy on the surface for such an organization. They must enhance the volunteer individual, add to their self; do not take it away or change them into something that they are not.

I hope you h

s in branding.

"Me to We" suggests giving up the individual for the whole. Well that is like saying Capitalism is Bad and Communism is Good. Yet we know from history that the biggest abuses of human rights have been caused in communist nations. You may email me if you need historical examples. The branded logo uses an interlocked m and w as the symbol, which is good as it suggests combining the two, but the slogan suggests erasing the individual for the many.

Thus the new symbol should be;

M

W = E2

If you put the M and W together on top of one another they form a symmetrical shape with an = sign in between you are left with E over E or One. Thus the Whole is the One and the One is the Whole you see? Then if you take the two E's left over you can multiply the efficiency. E squared. And this is a take-off of E=MC2 and so that ought to be the symbol for the movement.

We do not wish to change people when building a philanthropic endeavor; we wish to enhance understanding, proper thinking and ability to live in harmony. In this case study it should be evident that a huge error has been made and the lesson is; Do not take away the individual fore "I" may be able to do what 50 people can do, why waste efficiency.

Indeed, why should someone have to give up self to join a group to help others? Groucho Marx might have a comment on that; remember his famous quote.

"I would not join any club that would have someone like me for a member."

Do not destroy the individual for the betterment of the whole and do not destroy the whole for the betterment of the one. Actually philosophically if you destroy either you are doing the same thing anyway and we are all doomed to repeat.

It is not about "We thinking" or "We acting" as an actualized individual already does that automatically; altruistic gene [obviously part of the human make-up]. You see if someone makes a group "Me to We" then many individuals will say that I am 'never interested in being part of that' thus you lose all the superstars, but if we add the WE to ME or the ME to WE then WE all win. That is a Win/Win +.

I think as it stands the "Me to We" sends the incorrect message when you think it through. Although it is quite catchy on the surface for such an organization. They must enhance the volunteer individual, add to their self; do not take it away or change them into something that they are not.

I hope you

r they form a symmetrical shape with an = sign in between you are left with E over E or One. Thus the Whole is the One and the One is the Whole you see? Then if you take the two E's left over you can multiply the efficiency. E squared. And this is a take-off of E=MC2 and so that ought to be the symbol for the movement.

We do not wish to change people when building a philanthropic endeavor; we wish to enhance understanding, proper thinking and ability to live in harmony. In this case study it should be evident that a huge error has been made and the lesson is; Do not take away the individual fore "I" may be able to do what 50 people can do, why waste efficiency.

Indeed, why should someone have to give up self to join a group to help others? Groucho Marx might have a comment on that; remember his famous quote.

"I would not join any club that would have someone like me for a member."

Do not destroy the individual for the betterment of the whole and do not destroy the whole for the betterment of the one. Actually philosophically if you destroy either you are doing the same thing anyway and we are all doomed to repeat.

It is not about "We thinking" or "We acting" as an actualized individual already does that automatically; altruistic gene [obviously part of the human make-up]. You see if someone makes a group "Me to We" then many individuals will say that I am 'never interested in being part of that' thus you lose all the superstars, but if we add the WE to ME or the ME to WE then WE all win. That is a Win/Win +.

I think as it stands the "Me to We" sends the incorrect message when you think it through. Although it is quite catchy on the surface for such an organization. They must enhance the volunteer individual, add to their self; do not take it away or change them into something that they are not.

I hope you

le can do, why waste efficiency.

Indeed, why should someone have to give up self to join a group to help others? Groucho Marx might have a comment on that; remember his famous quote.

"I would not join any club that would have someone like me for a member."

Do not destroy the individual for the betterment of the whole and do not destroy the whole for the betterment of the one. Actually philosophically if you destroy either you are doing the same thing anyway and we are all doomed to repeat.

It is not about "We thinking" or "We acting" as an actualized individual already does that automatically; altruistic gene [obviously part of the human make-up]. You see if someone makes a group "Me to We" then many individuals will say that I am 'never interested in being part of that' thus you lose all the superstars, but if we add the WE to ME or the ME to WE then WE all win. That is a Win/Win +.

I think as it stands the "Me to We" sends the incorrect message when you think it through. Although it is quite catchy on the surface for such an organization. They must enhance the volunteer individual, add to their self; do not take it away or change them into something that they are not.

I hope you

lready does that automatically; altruistic gene [obviously part of the human make-up]. You see if someone makes a group "Me to We" then many individuals will say that I am 'never interested in being part of that' thus you lose all the superstars, but if we add the WE to ME or the ME to WE then WE all win. That is a Win/Win +.

I think as it stands the "Me to We" sends the incorrect message when you think it through. Although it is quite catchy on the surface for such an organization. They must enhance the volunteer individual, add to their self; do not take it away or change them into something that they are not.

I hope you have enjoyed this case study of a disaster in Non-profit Branding. The organization "Me to We" seems to or appears to have incorporated a slightly different slogan for another division of its philanthropy; "Feed The Children" so perhaps they have come to realize this branding issues. Of course one has to wonder if the stigma still rests in the minds of the observers.

This Case Study is your Branding Philosophy of the day and I sincerely hope it helps you in building better organization. This should help you understand the importance of good branding in the success as you build your dream.